[2013] KEHC 5834 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5834 (KLR)

The court found that the application was res judicata, as the issues raised had already been conclusively determined on five previous occasions. The court further held that it was functus officio, having exhausted its jurisdiction over the matter, and that the application was an abuse of the court process. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5834 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Isaac Ndungu Muchemi; Respondent: Marula Estate Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 111 of 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Stay Execution/taxation of Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MJA Emukule
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Functus Officio, Abuse of Process, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Res Judicata Functus Officio Abuse of Process Taxation of Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Ndungu Muchemi

Appellant

Marula Estate Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Stay Execution/taxation of Costs

  1. 1 Whether the application is res judicata and thus barred from re-litigation.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction under Order 22, rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 to entertain the application.
  3. 3 Whether the court is functus officio regarding the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was res judicata, as the issues raised had already been conclusively determined on five previous occasions. The court further held that it was functus officio, having exhausted its jurisdiction over the matter, and that the application was an abuse of the court process. The court also noted that the application related merely to the taxation of costs, with no imminent threat of execution, and thus there was no basis for the relief sought. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated and filed on 3rd May 2013 is dismissed with costs.